I am delighted that you think you know what I should and shouldn't do, Ed. And I don't think we share as much knowledge of the universe as you seem to think.

> 1)What is logic? "A is not B?" But isn't logic based

> on something simpler to begin with, such as being able

> to make distinctions in the first place between two

> things? What is making distinctions based on? Some of

> the simplest creatures can apparently distinguish

> between light and darkness, cold and hot, whether it's

> raining or not raining. In other words the logical

> phrase, "A is not B," is a very wide generalization

> based on something even more basic, a basic

> distinction that even simple organisms make.

So? This doesn't seem to be terribly relevant to anything we have discussed before.

>

> 2) Orderliness is not the same as logic. The universe

> is orderly and continues to repeat itself, as everyone

> from deists to atheists have admitted. It is a world

> of repetition, but what does repetition by itself

> mean?

Ed, you seem to run off in tangents. There is simply no context for this.

>

>3) Do your explanation clear up the mystery known as

> "the cosmos" by invoking an even greater mystery known

> as "God?"

Ed, when you can start talking about what the issue is rather than constantly foaming at the mouth about God and his non-existence, maybe we can have a rational discussion. As it is, you seem obsessed with anti-religionism. Your divine tinkerer post is a case in point. Having known you for several years, I think you are quite emotional about religion and indeed, are so obsessed with being against religion that you can't even think straight. Your reaction to religion is very emotional and irrational.

>How convincing is it to explain one mystery

> by invoking an ever great one, ad infinitum? Doesn't

> the cosmos remain a puzzle for philosophers of all

> kinds because none of us knows what existed before the

> cosmos, nor how events prior to the big bang

> functioned, nor if our cosmos is the only one, nor (if

> it isn't) how many other cosmoses there might be (or

> have been), nor (granted other cosmoses) what the

> states of those other cosmoses might be and what they

> contain.

And it is precisely this mystery which makes you certitude that there is no God seem so quaint and illogical.

>

> Be that as it may, I have hope and faith, as everyone

> alive does to some extent who wake to another day with

> some expecation rather than total loathing and dread.

> I also have many questions. Furthermore, some

> spiritualities as well as some atheisms, emphasize the

> preciousness of each moment ("being here now"), rather than

> dwelling on far flung pasts or infinite futures, so I am not

> inclined to join any religion that damns others due to

> religious or philosophical differences of opinion, especially

> over mysteries none of us have penetrated.

I am glad to learn that you are the judge and jury of what religion is true and false and can tell everyone on earth what is true and what is false. You must be quite intelligent.

In another note, Ed wrote:

ED: I have questions. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "prophecy and eternal judgment" in the above atheistic

reductionist universe. Please eludicate those concepts further. And I just read in the latest issue of either Discover or

New Scientist that someone has pointed out fresh objections heretofore unrecognized to the idea of particles traveling

backward in time. So the science is not exactly settled on that issue. <<<

Look prophecy and eternal judgment up in the dictionary. Surely you can do that.

>>ED:As for quantum mechanics and the functioning of the brain/mind, some say quantum effects take place on far too minute a scale and are random and equalize out, and hence have little to do with how the brain/mind functions. Others claim they do, but there is no sure data on either side. <<<<

Since I didn't discuss quantum and the brain, I fail to see why you want to raise this or what relevance this has to the things I have posted recently. Can you please elucidate your line of logic here?

>>ED:As for your discussion of intentionality and judgment, consider the problems raised by the notion of personhood. What makes each of us a person? A human infant raised by chimps would probably learn chimpanzee methods of

communication rather than human ones. What kind of a personality would result in such a case? Obviously human

society and other people define us throughout our lives in a myriad of ways that none of us can ever fully comprehend or quantize.<<<

Ed, you are way behind the times here (evidence that we don't share as much information about the universe as you want to think). By exactly parallel logic one would have to claim that chimps raised in human homes would 'probably learn human methods of communiction rather than chimp ones.' This experiement has actually be done and the chimps did not learn human communication at all. It really would be nice if a nice atheist like you would stay abreast of the issues of the day rather than foam at the mouth about how dumb religious people are. see Bernard Campbell, Human Evolution, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974), p. 349

>>ED:On free will, let's grant that you and I both have it, a will so free that if we were put into the exact same situation twice, our wills would be capable of responding in two completely different ways. Of course there is no way to prove that hypothesis, since we can never be in EXACTLY the same situation two times, since the situation has changed ever so slightly if only in time, and we have also changed in time, nor can we reset our memories backwards to the instant of the first situation.<<<

Ed, this is illogical. Just because you and I are put in the same situation doesn't mean that we are both predestined to perform the very same act. Why would that be? There is no reason whatsoever.

>>ED: And even if it was POSSIBLE to run such an experiment, and we did choose differently the second time (not even knowing it was a second time), surely there must have been something that tipped the scales and made the choice come out differently. If absolutely NOTHING tipped the scales, then our will is inherently so free that it's like a game wheel at a carnival, inherently unpredictable, and what's the good of having a will as free as that? Kind of a nonsensical will, influenced by nothing but itself, shooting off different responses even under exactly the same circumstances. It would make more sense to be connected to a deterministic cosmos than suffer such a willy nilly free will. <<<

The above shows that you really don't understand the issue of free-will vs determinism. Maybe a few philosophy courses would help.

>>Ed:Indeed, the human brain has developed in exactly the direction or growing MORE connected and MORE aware of the cosmos, searching it out on both a grand micro-and-macro scale, as well as learning about the past, human history, and scientific history, and able to run scenarios, evaluate consequences, based on all such expanding knowledge, all of

which expands our minds in a social evolutionary sense, connecting it further to the cosmos in ever broadening ways,

not disengaging it from the cosmos. So it would seem to be better to grow more connected with the cosmos, to learn all

you can about everything far and wide, old and new, before the mind comes up with what appear to be pre-determined

decisions. Such knowledge is what expands one's choices, freewilled or not. Lastly, let's suppose we DO have absolute

free will, and we are God's little free will toys, and He made us to be able to freely move in all directions, but whenever

we moved in one particular direction he immediately smashed us with a hammer for eternity. Is that a fair way to judge

one's toys? Also, how does one reconcile free will with God's perfect foreknowledge? <<<

Ed, this shows that you really didn't even understand what you read in my post When you do, maybe we can have a rational discussion, but as it is, your anti-religious mouthfoaming bias seems to deprive your brain of enough oxygen to understand the actual discussion. Frankly, I find your argumentation in these areas, less than worthy of a response.

I will also respond here to your private note without quoting from it. No, I have not been set upon by atheists and I have told you repeatedly I am not clinging to theism in the way you want to think. I have told you this repeatedly, but your arrogance prevents you from believing me. You think everyone will end up believing as you do because you think you have a special pipeline to the truth. You don't. Your evangelical atheism is quite cute and as religious in nature as that of any good Southern Baptist's or Jehovah Witness's evangelism. Why you think it is your duty to be an evangelical atheist, I don't know. Do you get kudos in the atheist Valhalla? After all, Ed, we are just another species destined for extinction in a totally meaningless universe. Who should care what we think? Why should we care what happens to us? What is the purpose of your evangelism? Yes, you ARE an evangelist even if you don't want the title. It seems to me quite silly to worry what is taught to a bunch of people who will eventually go extinct and be forgotten as are the thousands of previous species. Does it really matter to the world what trilobites believed--assuming they were capable of belief?. Who cares about arthropod theology Ed? Were the predestinationalist trilobites right or wrong? Did their worship of the complex eye matter a whit to this meaningless universe? Why are you worried about hominid theology since our fate is the same as that of that famous arthropod? You are silly in your anti-religious foamings. I actually feel sorry for you as I believe you to be a very sad individual who can't see that given your belief system it really doesn't matter what one believes, because there is no purpose in the universe. So why not let us poor theists who believe in a non-existent God have every much a right to our beliefs as you do to your equally meaningless and futile belief system? Is your futility that much better than ours? Never mind, Ed, I doubt you even understand what I write in this paragraph.

What I have lately been struck with is how arrogant atheists are and how they look down their noses at their fellow men who think deeply about the issue. I have also been struck by how study after study shows how selfish atheists are when it comes to volunteerism and giving money for the betterment of mankind. (YES, Ed, I have documentation of this and it can be found in scholarly journals.) Most atheists, like most YECs are simply a product of reading too much of their own material. They never question their own values, but question the values of anyone who disagrees with them. There is no intellectualism in being a brainwashed follower of either YEC or of the latest atheist fad. You, Ed, I am afraid, have simply swallowed the whole hook, line and sinker of your atheist persuasion and can no longer see clear to understand that you are not the judge and jury of the universe. You think you are an intellectual, but you are just a sad follower of a very selfish (in general) religion--that of areligion.